this that he regarded only _inner_ facts as facts, as “truths,”—that
he understood the rest, everything natural, temporal, material
and historical, only as signs, as opportunities for parables. The
concept “the Son of Man,” is not a concrete personality belonging to
history, anything individual and isolated, but an “eternal” fact,
a psychological symbol divorced from the concept of time. The same
is true, and in the highest degree, of the _God_ of this typical
symbolist, of the “Kingdom of God,” of the “Kingdom of Heaven,” and
of the “Sonship of God.” Nothing is more un-Christlike than the
_ecclesiastical crudity_ of a personal God, of a Kingdom of God that
is coming, of a “Kingdom of Heaven” beyond, of a “Son of God” as the
second person of the Trinity. All this, if I may be forgiven the
expression, is as fitting as a square peg in a round hole—and oh!
what a hole!—the gospels: a _world-historic_ cynicism in the scorn
of symbols.... But what is meant by the signs “Father” and “Son,” is
of course obvious—not to everybody, I admit: with the word “Son,”
_entrance_ into the feeling of the general transfiguration of all
things (beatitude) is expressed, with the word “Father,” _this feeling
itself_ the feeling of eternity and of perfection.—I blush to have to
remind you of what the Church has done with this symbolism: has it not
set an Amphitryon story at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And
a dogma of immaculate conception into the bargain?... _But by so doing
it defiled conception._——
The “Kingdom of Heaven” is a state of the heart—not something
which exists “beyond this earth” or comes to you “after death.” The
whole idea of natural death is lacking in the gospels. Death is not
a bridge, not a means of access: it is absent because it belongs to
quite a different and merely apparent world the only use of which is
to furnish signs, similes. The “hour of death” is not a Christian
idea—the “hour,” time in general, physical life and its crises do not
exist for the messenger of “glad tidings.” ... The “Kingdom of God” is
not some thing that is expected; it has no yesterday nor any day after
to-morrow, it is not going to come in a “thousand years”—it is an
experience of a human heart; it is everywhere, it is nowhere....
35
This “messenger of glad tidings” died as he lived and as he
taught—_not_ in order “to save mankind,” but in order to show how one
ought to live. It was a mode of life that he bequeathed to mankind: his
behaviour before his judges, his attitude towards his executioners,
his accusers, and all kinds of calumny and scorn,—his demeanour on
the _cross._ He offers no resistance; he does not defend his rights;
he takes no step to ward off the most extreme consequences, he does
more,—he provokes them. And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in
those, who treat him ill.... _Not_ to defend one’s self, _not_ to show
anger, not to hold anyone responsible.... But to refrain from resisting
even the evil one,—to _love_ him....
36
—Only we spirits that have _become free,_ possess the necessary
condition for understanding something which nineteen centuries have
misunderstood,—that honesty which has become an instinct and a passion
in us, and which wages war upon the “holy lie” with even more vigour
than upon every other lie.... Mankind was unspeakably far from our
beneficent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the mind,
which, alone, renders the solution of such strange and subtle things
possible: at all times, with shameless egoism, all that people sought
was their _own_ advantage in these matters, the Church was built up out
of contradiction to the gospel....
Whoever might seek for signs pointing to the guiding fingers of an
ironical deity behind the great comedy of existence, would find no
small argument in the _huge note of interrogation_ that is called
Christianity. The fact that mankind is on its knees before the reverse
of that which formed the origin, the meaning and the _rights_ of
the gospel; the fact that, in the idea “Church,” precisely that is
pronounced holy which the “messenger of glad tidings” regarded as
_beneath_ him, as _behind_ him—one might seek in vain for a more
egregious example _of world-historic_ irony—-
37
—Our age is proud of its historical sense: how could it allow
itself to be convinced of the nonsensical idea that at the beginning
Christianity consisted only of the _clumsy fable of the thaumaturgist
and of the Saviour,_ and that all its spiritual and symbolic
side was only developed later? On the contrary: the history of
Christianity—from the death on the cross onwards—is the history of
a gradual and ever coarser misunderstanding of an original symbolism.
With every extension of Christianity over ever larger and ruder
masses, who were ever less able to grasp its first principles, the
need of _vulgarising and barbarising it_ increased proportionately—it
absorbed the teachings and rites of all the _subterranean_ cults of the
_imperium Romanum,_ as well as the nonsense of every kind of morbid
reasoning. The fatal feature of Christianity lies in the necessary
fact that its faith had to become as morbid, base and vulgar as the
needs to which it had to minister were morbid, base and vulgar. _Morbid
barbarism_ at last braces itself together for power in the form of the
Church—the Church, this deadly hostility to all honesty, to all
loftiness of the soul, to all discipline of the mind, to all frank and
kindly humanity.—_Christian_ and _noble_ values: only we spirits _who
have become free have_ re-established this contrast in values which is
the greatest that has ever existed on earth!—
38
—I cannot, at this point, stifle a sigh. There are days when I
am visited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy—the
_contempt of man._ And in order that I may leave you in no doubt as
to what I despise, _whom_ I despise: I declare that it is the man of
to-day, the man with whom I am fatally contemporaneous. The man of
to-day, I am asphyxiated by his foul breath.... Towards the past, like
all knights of knowledge, I am profoundly tolerant,—that is to say,
I exercise a sort of _generous_ self-control: with gloomy caution I
pass through whole millennia of this mad-house world, and whether it
be called “Christianity,” “Christian Faith,” or “Christian Church,” I
take care not to hold mankind responsible for its mental disorders.
But my feeling suddenly changes, and vents itself the moment I enter
the modern age, _our_ age. Our age _knows...._ That which formerly
was merely morbid, is now positively indecent It is indecent nowadays
to be a Christian. _And it is here that my loathing begins._ I look
about me: not a word of what was formerly known as “truth” has remained
standing; we can no longer endure to hear a priest even pronounce the
word “truth.” Even he who makes but the most modest claims upon truth,
_must_ know at present, that a theologian, a priest, or a pope, not
only errs but actually _ties,_ with every word that he utters,—and
that he is no longer able to lie from “innocence,” from “ignorance.”
Even the priest knows quite as well as everybody else does that there
is no longer any “God,” any “sinner” or any “Saviour,” and that “free
will,” and “a moral order of the universe” are _lies._ Seriousness,
the profound self-conquest of the spirit no longer allows anyone to
be _ignorant_ about this.... All the concepts of the Church have been
revealed in their true colours—that is to say, as the most vicious
frauds on earth, calculated to _depreciate_ nature and all natural
values. The priest himself has been recognised as what he is—that is
to say, as the most dangerous kind of parasite, as the actual venomous
spider of existence.... At present we know, our _conscience_ knows,
the real value of the gruesome inventions which the priests and the
Church have made, _and what end they served._ By means of them that
state of self-profanation on the part of man has been attained, the
sight of which makes one heave. The concepts “Beyond,” “Last Judgment,”
“Immortality of the Soul,” the “soul” itself, are merely so many
instruments of torture, so many systems of cruelty, on the strength
of which the priest became and remained master.... Everybody knows
this, _and nevertheless everything remains as it was._ Whither has
the last shred of decency, of self-respect gone, if nowadays even
our statesmen—a body of men who are otherwise so unembarrassed, and
such thorough anti-Christians in deed—still declare themselves
Christians and still flock to communion?[5].... Fancy a prince at the
head of his legions, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and
self-exaltation of his people,—but _shameless_ enough to acknowledge
himself a Christian!... What then does Christianity deny? What does
it call “world”? “The world” to Christianity means that a man is a
soldier, a judge, a patriot, that he defends himself, that he values
his honour, that he desires his own advantage, that he is _proud._
... The conduct of every moment, every instinct, every valuation that
leads to a deed, is at present anti-Christian: what an _abortion of
falsehood_ modern man must be, in order to be able _without a blush_
still to call himself a Christian!——
39
—I will retrace my steps, and will tell you the _genuine_
history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a
misunderstanding,—truth to tell, there never was more than one
Christian, and he _died_ on the Cross. The “gospel” _died_ on the
cross. That which thenceforward was called “gospel” was the reverse
of that “gospel” that Christ had lived: it was “evil tidings,” a
_dysangel_ It is false to the point of nonsense to see in “faith,”
in the faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing trait
of the Christian: the only thing that is Christian is the Christian
mode of existence, a life such as he led who died on the Cross.... To
this day a life of this kind is still possible; for certain men, it
is even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will be possible
in all ages.... _Not_ a faith, but a course of action, above all a
course of inaction, non-interference, and a different life.... States
of consciousness, any sort of faith, a holding of certain things
for true, as every psychologist knows, are indeed of absolutely no
consequence, and are only of fifth-rate importance compared with the
value of the instincts: more exactly, the whole concept of intellectual
causality is false. To reduce the fact of being a Christian, or of
Christianity, to a holding of something for true, to a mere phenomenon
of consciousness, is tantamount to denying Christianity. _In fact
there have never been any Christians._ The “Christian,” he who for two
thousand years has been called a Christian, is merely a psychological
misunderstanding of self. Looked at more closely, there ruled in
him, _notwithstanding_ all his faith, only instincts—and _what
instincts!_—“Faith” in all ages, as for instance in the case of
Luther, has always been merely a cloak, a pretext, a _screen,_ behind
which the instincts played their game,—a prudent form of _blindness_
in regard to the dominion of _certain_ instincts. “Faith” I have
already characterised as a piece of really Christian cleverness; for
people have always spoken of “faith” and acted according to their
instincts.... In the Christian’s world of ideas there is nothing which
even touches reality: but I have already recognised in the instinctive
hatred of reality the actual motive force, the only driving power at
the root of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That here, even
_in psychologicis_, error is fundamental,—that is to say capable
of determining the spirit of things,—that is to say, _substance._
Take one idea away from the whole, and put one realistic fact in its
stead,—and the whole of Christianity tumbles into nonentity!—Surveyed
from above, this strangest of all facts,-a religion not only dependent
upon error, but inventive and showing signs of genius only in those
errors which are dangerous and which poison life and the human
heart—remains a _spectacle for gods,_ for those gods who are at the
same time philosophers and whom I met for instance in those celebrated
dialogues on the island of Naxos. At the moment when they get rid
of their _loathing (—and we do as well!_), they will be thankful
for the spectacle the Christians have offered: the wretched little
planet called Earth perhaps deserves on account of _this_ curious
case alone, a divine glance, and divine interest.... Let us not
therefore underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false _to the
point of innocence in falsity,_ is far above the apes,—in regard to
the Christians a certain well-known theory of Descent becomes a mere
good-natured compliment.
40
—The fate of the gospel was decided at the moment of the death,—it
hung on the “cross.” ... It was only death, this unexpected and
ignominious death; it was only the cross which as a rule was reserved
simply for the _canaille,_—only this appalling paradox which
confronted the disciples with the actual riddle: _Who was that? what
was that?_—The state produced by the excited and profoundly wounded
feelings of these men, the suspicion that such a death might imply the
_refutation_ of their cause, and the terrible note of interrogation:
“why precisely thus?” will be understood only too well. In this case
everything _must_ be necessary, everything must have meaning, a reason,
the highest reason. The love of a disciple admits of no such thing as
accident. Only then did the chasm yawn: “who has killed him?” “who was
his natural enemy?”—this question rent the firmament like a flash of
lightning. Reply: _dominant_ Judaism, its ruling class. Thenceforward
the disciple felt himself in revolt _against_ established order; he
understood Jesus, after the fact, as one in _revolt against established
order._ Heretofore this warlike, this nay-saying and nay-doing feature
in Christ had been lacking; nay more, he was its contradiction. The
small primitive community had obviously understood _nothing_ of the
principal factor of all, which was the example of freedom and of
superiority to every form of _resentment_ which lay in this way of
dying. And this shows how little they understood him altogether! At
bottom Jesus could not have desired anything else by his death than to
give the strongest public _example_ and _proof_ of his doctrine....
But his disciples were very far from _forgiving this_ death—though if
they had done so it would have been in the highest sense evangelical
on their part,—neither were they prepared, with a gentle and serene
calmness of heart, to _offer_ themselves for a similar death....
Precisely the most unevangelical feeling, _revenge,_ became once more
ascendant. It was impossible for the cause to end with this death:
“compensation” and “judgment” were required (—and forsooth, what could
be more unevangelical than “compensation,” “punishment,” “judgment”!)
The popular expectation of a Messiah once more became prominent;
attention was fixed upon one historical moment: the “Kingdom of God”
descends to sit in judgment upon his enemies. But this proves that
everything was misunderstood: the “Kingdom of God” regarded as the last
scene of the last act, as a promise! But the Gospel had clearly been
the living, the fulfilment, the _reality_ of this “Kingdom of God.”
It was precisely a death such as Christ’s that was this “Kingdom of
God.” It was only now that all the contempt for the Pharisees and the
theologians, and all bitter feelings towards them, were introduced
into the character of the Master,—and by this means he himself was
converted into a Pharisee and a theologian! On the other hand, the
savage veneration of these completely unhinged souls could no longer
endure that evangelical right of every man to be the child of God,
which Jesus had taught: their revenge consisted in _elevating_ Jesus in
a manner devoid of all reason, and in separating him from themselves:
just as, formerly, the Jews, with the view of revenging themselves on
their enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him high
above them. The Only God, and the Only Son of God:—both were products
of resentment.
41
—And from this time forward an absurd problem rose into prominence:
“how _could_ God allow it to happen?” To this question the disordered
minds of the small community found a reply which in its absurdity
was literally terrifying: God gave his Son as a _sacrifice_ for the
forgiveness of sins. Alas! how prompt and sudden was the end of
the gospel! Expiatory sacrifice for guilt, and indeed in its most
repulsive and barbaric form,—the sacrifice of the _innocent_ for
the sins of the guilty! What appalling Paganism!—For Jesus himself
had done away with the concept “guilt,”—he denied any gulf between
God and man, he _lived_ this unity between God and man, it was this
that constituted _his_ “glad tidings.” ... And he did _not_ teach it
as a privilege!—Thenceforward there was gradually imported into the
type of the Saviour the doctrine of the Last Judgment, and of the
“second coming,” the doctrine of sacrificial death, and the doctrine
of _Resurrection,_ by means of which the whole concept “blessedness,”
the entire and only reality of the gospel, is conjured away—in favour
of a state _after_ death!... St Paul, with that rabbinic impudence
which characterises all his doings, rationalised this conception, this
prostitution of a conception, as follows: “if Christ did not rise from
the dead, our faith is vain.”—And, in a trice, the most contemptible
of all unrealisable promises, the _impudent_ doctrine of personal
immortality, was woven out of the gospel.... St Paul even preached this
immortality as a reward.
42
You now realise what it was that came to an end with the death on the
cross: a new and thoroughly original effort towards a Buddhistic
movement of peace, towards real and _not_ merely promised _happiness
on earth._ For, as I have already pointed out, this remains the
fundamental difference between the two religions _of decadence:_
Buddhism promises little but fulfils more, Christianity promises
everything but fulfils nothing.—The “glad tidings” were followed
closely by the absolutely _worst_ tidings—those of St Paul. Paul is
the incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Saviour;
he is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the
relentless logic of hatred. And alas what did this dysangelist not
sacrifice to his hatred! Above all the Saviour himself: he nailed him
to _his_ cross. Christ’s life, his example, his doctrine and death,
the sense and the right of the gospel—not a vestige of alt this
was left, once this forger, prompted by his hatred, had understood
in it only that which could serve his purpose. _Not_ reality: _not_
historical truth! ... And once more, the sacerdotal instinct of
the Jew, perpetrated the same great crime against history,—he
simply cancelled the yesterday, and the day before that, out of
Christianity; he _contrived of his own accord a history of the birth
of Christianity._ He did more: he once more falsified the history of
Israel, so as to make it appear as a prologue to _his_ mission: all the
prophets had referred to _his_ “Saviour.” ... Later on the Church even
distorted the history of mankind so as to convert it into a prelude to
Christianity.... The type of the Saviour, his teaching, his life, his
death, the meaning of his death, even the sequel to his death—nothing
remained untouched, nothing was left which even remotely resembled
reality. St Paul simply transferred the centre of gravity of the whole
of that great life, to a place _behind_ this life,—in the _lie_ of
the “resuscitated” Christ. At bottom, he had no possible use for the
life of the Saviour,—he needed the death on the cross, _and_ something
more. To regard as honest a man like St Paul (a man whose home was the
very headquarters of Stoical enlightenment) when he devises a proof
of the continued existence of the Saviour out of a hallucination; or
even to believe him when he declares that he had this hallucination,
would amount to foolishness on the part of a psychologist: St Paul
desired the end, consequently he also desired the means.... Even what
he himself did not believe, was believed in by the idiots among whom
he spread _his_ doctrine.—What he wanted was power; with St Paul the
priest again aspired to power,—he could make use only of concepts,
doctrines, symbols with which masses may be tyrannised over, and
with which herds are formed. What was the only part of Christianity
which was subsequently borrowed by Muhamed? St Paul’s invention, his
expedient for priestly tyranny and to the formation of herds: the
belief in immortality—_that is to say, the doctrine of the “Last
Judgment.” ..._
43
When the centre of gravity of life is laid, _not_ in life, but in a
beyond—_in nonentity,_—life is utterly robbed of its balance. The
great lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all nature in
the instincts,—everything in the instincts that is beneficent, that
promotes life and that is a guarantee of the future, henceforward
aroused suspicion. The very meaning of life is now construed as the
effort to live in such a way that life no longer has any point.... Why
show any public spirit? Why be grateful for one’s origin and one’s
forebears? Why collaborate with one’s fellows, and be confident? Why
be concerned about the general weal or strive after it?... All these
things are merely so many “temptations,” so many deviations from the
“straight path.” “One thing only is necessary.” ... That everybody, as
an “immortal soul,” should have equal rank, that in the totality of
beings, the “salvation” of each individual may lay claim to eternal
importance, that insignificant bigots and three-quarter-lunatics may
have the right to suppose that the laws of nature may be persistently
_broken_ on their account,—any such magnification of every kind
of selfishness to infinity, to _insolence,_ cannot be branded with
sufficient contempt And yet it is to this miserable flattery of
personal vanity that Christianity owes its _triumph,_—by this means
it lured all the bungled and the botched, all revolting and revolted
people, all abortions, the whole of the refuse and offal of humanity,
over to its side. The “salvation of the soul”—in plain English: “the
world revolves around me” ... The poison of the doctrine “_equal_
rights for all”—has been dispensed with the greatest thoroughness by
Christianity: Christianity, prompted by the most secret recesses of
bad instincts, has waged a deadly war upon all feeling of reverence
and distance between man and man—that is to say, the _prerequisite_
of all elevation, of every growth in culture; out of the resentment
of the masses it wrought its _principal weapons_ against us, against
everything noble, joyful, exalted on earth, against our happiness on
earth.... To grant “immortality” to every St Peter and St Paul, was
the greatest, the most vicious outrage upon _noble_ humanity that has
ever been perpetrated.—And do not let us underestimate the fatal
influence which, springing from Christianity, has insinuated itself
even into politics! Nowadays no one has the courage of special rights,
of rights of t dominion, of a feeling of self-respect and of respect
for his equals,—of _pathos of distance._ Our politics are diseased
with this lack of courage!—The aristocratic attitude of mind has been
most thoroughly undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if
the belief in the “privilege of the greatest number” creates and will
continue _to create revolutions,_—it is Christianity, let there be no
doubt about it, and Christian values, which convert every revolution
into blood and crime! Christianity is the revolt of all things that
crawl on their bellies against everything that is lofty: the gospel of
the “lowly” _lowers...._
44